Would that be PAYE tax by any chance?

I was employed when the dispute arose but I am now on benefits and I would be grateful if you would confirm the reason for your concern about my current status, and whether you have some financial interest in it?

I meant to say £1 per month which is all that I can afford at present.

I thought that I would advise you of my experience with NCO, I wish that I had known of this thread earlier. I had a dispute with a seller on Ebay who reneged on the agreement after the auction ended. PayPal found in my favour and paid me compensation which they then wanted to take back. PayPal took money from my account which was empty, leaving a credit balance and did not provide the sellers address. I started receiving correspondence from NCO. I telephoned them and advised of the dispute but they were not interested and threatened to issue proceedings. They then started sending the postcards advising that Mr Brown would call on Tuesday. I was required to take time off work just in case he called as my husband was in ill health and he was concerned about the threat to attend. I telephoned them and told them to issue proceedings if they believed that the money was owed but to stop sending postcards because of my husband's health and I considered their actions to be harassment. They said that if I was worried about my health I should make payment. I did not know what else to do and eventually issued proceedings in the small claims court against PayPal for breach of contract as the sellers agent and against NCO for harassment. PayPal submitted a defence stating that I had issued against the wrong company, they had changed to PayPal Sar in Luxemborg during June 2007. I did not believe that there was merit in this as the dispute arose during December 2006. NCO did not respond and judgment was entered against them. I issued a warrant of enforcement and NCO instructed solicitors who submitted an application to set the judgment aside. The matter was poorly handled by the court, there have been three hearings for a dispute over such a small amount, the last one was supposed to be a defendants' application hearing, but PayPal did not even attend and counsel for NCO hardly spoke except to request costs. The judge dismissed my claim on the basis that it was misconceived, that I should have claimed against the seller and that there was nothing wrong with the postcards from NCO which could not be considered as harassment, that NCO were actually complying with the Civil Procedure Rules in attempting to recover money this way and not clogging up the courts. I have to pay the application fee of £75.00 and counsel's fees of £150.00 but as I am on benefits NCO will have to be satisfied with payment of this amount at £1.00 per month. I am considering an application for appeal or judicial review. My only satisfaction is in the fact that this action has cost NCO approximately £1000.00 in solicitors fees. I believe that Trading Standards should now investigate the methods of this company and bring action on behalf of consumers.

I will ensure that everyone on this site is made aware of the way that this matter is finally resolved.

I am sure that if there is anything that I stated that is not the truth Norwich Union would have taken the appropriate action. I have nothing more to loose and truly believe that it is my duty to make consumers fully aware of the actions of Norwich Union and that you confront them and stand up for what is right at your peril. The placing of a customer relations advisor on this Website is clearly nothing more than a public relations smokescreen.

Norwich Union destroyed my life. I was employed by DAS Legal Expenses as a litigator. DAS sells legal expenses insurance policies on the back of various insurance company's household insurance polices. Norwich Union provides DAS with approximately half of its business. Prior to these events I had never been involved in any disciplinary action and had been employed by for more than six years. During October 2006 I was dealing with a claim on behalf of a Halifax policy holder. I was seeking to recover the excess he had paid in a subsidence claim against his neighbour, the third party, who was insured with Norwich Union. The neighbour had failed to respond to my correspondence and I had advised that proceedings would be issued against him to recover the excess. At the end of October 2006 I received a telephone call from a Norwich Union claims handler. She told me that I was unable to issue proceedings against their policy holder because of a Memorandum which stated that all insurance companies who had signed up to the Memorandum would not issue proceedings against each other. She advised me that Halifax had signed up to the Memorandum. I advised her the existance of any Memorandum could not have any effect on the Halifax policy holder or on myself as DAS was a different company to Halifax. She said that she knew who DAS were, that we sold legal expenses policies on the back of Halifax policies and that we also sold legal expenses on the back of Norwich Union policies but that this would now cease and put the phone down. I advised the DAS Sales Department of these incidents and proceeded to issue the proceedings against the third party. At the end of November 2006 I was advised by my manager that Norwich Union had submitted a complaint about me, they alleged that I had been abusive to their claims handler during the telephone conversation. I strenuously denied that I had acted unprofessionally in any way and it became apparent that although DAS and Norwich Union profess to record all calls, a recording of the conversation had not been retained by either company. My immediate manager advised me that the Halifax policy holder's claim no longer had any prospects of success and the claim against the Norwich Union third party should not be pursued further. There is a clear conflict of interest issue here and Norwich Union should have been advised that their unsubstantiated allegations attempting to prevent proceedings against their policy holder could not be entertained but this clearly cannot happen when the third party is Norwich Union. I sent correspondence to Norwich Union advising that they had made allegations against my professional reputation which were untrue and which I considered to be defamatory and I required a retraction and an apology. For this reason I was suspended from my employment and eventually attended a disciplinary hearing where I was dismissed from my employment. I suffered from work related stress and am now living on benefits. Norwich Union failed to respond to my correspondence for a period in excess of six week, after I had contacted their Chief Executive. An in-house solicitor responded, advising that they stood by their allegations and if I did not like it I should issue defamation proceedings which would be vigorously defended. DAS tried to prevent me corresponding with Norwich Union threatening further disciplinary sanctions but I have a legal right to clear my name and I persisted. Norwich Union failed to comply with the pre-action protocol for defamation action and failed to respond to my questions advising that I was fully aware of their position and should issue proceedings against them if I did not like it. I issued defamation proceedings against Norwich Union in the High Court during July 2007. The Norwich Union in-house solicitor immediately made an offer of amends to myself, they provided a letter which confirmed that their allegations were not correct, that they were aware that I did not make abusive remarks to their handler and they apologised for any distress which they had caused.They offered a paltry amount of compensation and advised that if this figure was unacceptable they were prepared to attend a without prejudice meeting to discuss compensation. I immediately telephoned the in-house solicitor accepting the offer of amends but not the compensation due to my loss of employment caused by their actions. I advised that I was prepared to attend a without prejudice meeting to negotiate the compensation and the solicitor confirmed that he would speak to his client and revert to me with possible dates. My prompt action meant that Norwich Union were able to advise the court that the offer of amends had been accepted and they avoided counsel's fees for the drafting and submission of a defence. Since then Norwich Union failed to provide any dates for the without prejudice meeting advising that there is no point as they believe that their offer was fair. I have now been required to make an application to the High Court for a hearing to decide the amount of compensation. Norwich Union have threated to apply for the reimbursement of all of their costs which they advise will be extensive to come out of any settlement if I proceed to court rather than accept their offer. I have commenced proceedings in the Employment Tribunal against DAS and I have become aware of the involvement of Norwich Union in my dismissal. The in-house solicitor telephoned DAS and wanted to know why I was still sending correspondence to them after I had been told not to and what they were doing about it. I also became aware that copy correspondence between myself and Norwich Union was passed to DAS to assist their defence, without my consent, contrary to the Data Protection Act. I am advising of my experience in this thread to make the public fully aware of the actions of Norwich Union, the largest insurance company in the UK and the power that they seek to weld over companies who enter business with them and the employees of those companies. The public will then be able to judge whether Norwich Union is a company which they would wish to give their business to. The Consumer Action Group has made it possible for power to be transferred back to the consumer, by providing a forum so that the actions of companies like Norwich Union can be aired and discussed and reasoned choices can be made. The power has been transferred away from companies like Norwich Union who cannot see any reason why they should be accountable for their actions. If you have concerns over the events which I have described you should vote with your feet, obtain insurance from a reputable company and boycott Norwich Union, but don't just leave it at that, ensure that all of your family and friends as well as any organisations that you have associations with, are also aware of the dubious business practices of this company and take their business elsewhere. Over to you Beccus.

If you look on the "I am a Norwich Union Customer Service Advisor" thread you will note that wherever DAS underwrite the legal expenses insurance on a policy they will negotiate on your behalf and when proceedings are issued when they will allow you to appoint your own solicitor. This being the case, as your proceedings were issued and your solicitor already appointed they should have paid the whole lot.

I don't live in the areas mentioned but I am angry that shops are refusing to accept cheques. Having worked in claims I can categorically state that the numbers of people falling victim to identity fraud has rocketed since the intorduction of chip and pin. Some victims have had difficulty obtaining reimbursement for their loss from their bank unlesss they can evidence that the number was not accessable to the thief. I refuse to use chip and pin and I am now only able to shop at Tesco for food as they continue to accept cheques. I believe that a boycott of shops which will not accept cheques is immediately required.

I feel extremely sorry for you but am unable to help as I do not have any legal knowledge. I hope that someone can assist you.

Why not issue proceedings against them in the small claims court? Try and put a value on the telephone calls and postage and of course your time. The proceedings will cost £30 which you can claim back. If you are on benefits or a small income you will not have to payanything. Include the person that they claim to be acting for as the First Defendant and the debt agency as the Second Defendant. State in the pleadings that you require confirmation from them that they will not pursue the debt. Both parties will have to travel to your home town for the hearing and they will lose a day off work which they are unable to claim for. They will not bother. They will pay your claim plus costs and interest at 8% from the date the expenses were incurred.

NCO. Dispute with seller on Ebay who was unhappy with final selling amount and attempted to withdraw from sale. Money awarded but Ebay then sought to recover it but we refused to repay. NCO offered settlement of 75% which was refused. The best move is to return all correspondence in same envelope stating return to sender so that postage is not paid.

Intrum Justitia. Outstanding fee of £21.00 was paid to Ebay on 2 July 2007. Letters from Intrum Justitia dated 3 and 13 July 2007 requesting payment of £30.00+. Advised them cheque sent and they were aware of that but required £8.61 for their involvement. This begs the question why they are demanding £30.00+ when they areaware that £21.00 was paid. Told them they may issue for £8.00 if they want.

You should submit your claim to the legal expenses insurers to see if they will provide cover. If they do not complain to the household insurers whose policy includes the legal expenses insurance. Alternatively, complain to the FOS or the Legal Complaints Service who deal with complaints for the Law Society as legal expnses insurance companies are normally regulated by the Law Society as well as the FSA. Or if you are seeking to recover bank charges you could go it alone taking advice from the site as most banks will cave in.

There should be a clause in your legal expenses policy that states that the policy will not support any action against "us" meaning Nationwide and DAS. If there is no such clause it may be that the policy has been negligently drafted and it will be for Nationwide and DAS to argue about whose negligence it was. In any event the chances are that nationwide or DAS or both will pay your claim before too many costs are incurred.